Government

bush Gets Something Right

This entry was posted in Government Libertarianism on by

As shocking as it might seem bush was right in his radio address yesterday when he said:

….in a free society, decisions about such a fundamental social institution as marriage should be made by the people…

Yes, they should. These decisions should be made by individual people voluntarily arranging their lives with other individuals.
There are a lot of folks, though, including bush who, contrary to his own words, do not believe we should have a free society.

In our free society, people have the right to choose how they live their lives.

Instead they advocate taking the freedom to live their lives by their voluntary choices from the people and put in its place amendments, laws and regulations that take freedom from the people.
A constitutional amendment does not

….put a decision that is critical to American families and American society in the hands of the American people, which is exactly where it belongs.

It, in fact, takes it out of the hands of the people. Again, it is the involved free individuals who should make the voluntary decisions about how to arrange their lives with others.

In a free society federal, state or local legislative bodies have no business being involved in these voluntary arrangements.

Just Say NO!

This entry was posted in Constitution Government Law Libertarianism Privacy on by

gonzales and mueller can simply go spend their time sharing their personal transactions with each other:

Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller privately met with representatives of AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft and Verizon last week and said that Internet providers–and perhaps search engines–must retain data for two years to aid in anti-terrorism prosecutions, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday.

If there is an active investigation and these twinks have demonstrated probable cause to a judge in a non-secret court that some one may be involved in the commission of a crime or has committed a crime then you can start tapping that one person’s data now. You do not get to build a massive fishing pond.
Yet another reason to toss’m all out…and not replace’m.
Via Why Now.

Where Is He Talking About?

This entry was posted in Government on by

Buried deep in a Wired article about home chemistry and science development:

“To criminalize the necessary materials of discovery is one of the worst things you can do in a free society,” says Shawn Carlson, a 1999 MacArthur fellow and founder of the Society for Amateur Scientists.

Uhhh, just where is this free society Carlson refers to? This article describes some wierd totalitarian society that once could be found only in stalinist russia or some dystopia leached from a science fiction writer’s nightmare.

Via Hit & Run.

Another Reason to Toss’m Out

This entry was posted in Government on by

Just because Cspan shows them debating the issues from time to time doesn’t mean that they really are:

The Senate just needs to pass “anything to get us into conference,” where the real decisions will be made, House telecommunications subcommittee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said Tuesday at a telecom forum hosted by National Journal’s Technology Daily.

It is bad enough when these scoundrels mess with our lives in the open, on the floor of the house or senate, but this makes it pretty clear that what happens in the open, bad as it usually is, is just window dressing. Don’t let anyone fool you into thinking that this is just a republithug thing. Put the demothiefs in charge and you will have more of the same.
Via MyDD via The Sideshow.

Oaths and Pledges

This entry was posted in Government on by

Is the oath that newly elected officials are supposed to recite in Tequesta, FL unconstitutional?

A newly elected village council member is suing the municipality to have the oath of office declared unconstitutional because it supports the federal government, something he says he does not do.
Basil E. Dalack, 76, an appellate lawyer, also wants the words ”and government” removed from the section that reads, ”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and government of the United States and of the state of Florida.” The lawsuit was filed last week in federal court.
The oath violates the Constitution by placing a restraint on Dalack’s right to free speech and denies him, without due process, occupancy of his elective office, the lawsuit states.

Well, it may or may not be constitutuional but this question obscures what should be the real issue.
These electected officials are supposed to be public servants, i.e., they serve the citizens of their jurisdiction. It is these citizens to whom they should be swearing oaths of fealty and their oaths should be similar to a proper pledge of allegiance; something like:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the people of [name your jurisdiction], protect their lives, help them maintain their liberty and assist them in their pursuit of happiness.

To the extent that the Constitution and government of Florida and the US match this then, well, they are supportable.